Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3572323" data-attributes="member: 1656">No - that's taking "A dog is not a cat", and drawing the conclusion "That is not a dog, therefore it is a cat".  "A sword in my hand is already drawn" does not yield the conclusion "A sword not in my hand is not drawn".  It does tell us "An undrawn sword is not in my hand".A sword on the floor (but not sheathed) is drawn; it is not ready for combat, because I'm not holding it.It has a drawn sword not in both hands going to being in both hands. We will just have to disagree.  You think it is a free action to change hands and I don't.  These two sound fine to me.This one bothers me, for the same reason I'd disallow greatsword and armor spikes - I'm not convinced the rules permit making a two-handed attack and an off-hand attack.If those two-handed attacks were straight primary (one-handed) attacks, or if he didn't avail himself of the off-hand attack, I'd have no problem with this example.So "change of stance" isn't really anything to do with the action required.So "going from not being in both hands to being in both hands" requires the Draw a Weapon action, because the state is changing, but "going from not being in one hand to being in one hand" doesn't, despite the state changing?-Hyp.</blockquote>